elcprobonoprojectfandomcom-20200214-history
Attorney Feedback Summaries
Attorney Feedback Outline *Concerns / challenges **Cannibalizing other pro bono opportunities: ***MSM (already participates with ELC + Art network) *Time commitment *What attorneys are willing to contribute **Office hours (for both tech + lifestyle): ***MSM (yes for both) ***Start-Up Colorado is targeted to do this - office hours (see below for Start-Up Colorado info) **Full discrete projects: ***MSM (only for lifestyle) *Ideas about structure *In favor of pro bono network? *What students could contribute *Connection to another entity (e.g., Silicon Flatirons, ACC, COBar, etc.) *Other suggestions ---- Attorney Feedback Summaries * Matt McKinney ("MSM") ** MSM was concerned about cannibalizing other pro bono opportunities or potentially cannibalizing attorneys' own business opportunities (particularly for tech companies). MSM was much less willing to contribute pro bono time for discrete projects for tech companies, much more willing for lifestyle companies. Felt it was important for tech companies to pay since it is a necessary transactional cost for tech companies particularly in tech growth areas like Boulder. Receiving free legal services without limit through a pro bono network would likely create slanted / unrealistic expectations in founders for tech companies. Lifestyle businesses like Mi Casa were a lot more persuasive in terms of their need and pro bono criteria. MSM did feel that a pro bono network was a good idea. MSM was also in favor of clinic students adding value, though didn't have specific feedback on ideas for that -- was willing to talk to Brad more about his hesitations for tech companies. But was willing to provide office hours (15 minutes per company, potentially) for both tech and lifestyle businesses. MSM felt that he had many opportunities to devote his time to pro bono (including ELC and the art network), thought that ELC pro bono network could be connected to another entity and that might work. * Candace Whitaker (Faegre Pro Bono Coordinator) ** Candace felt that there is significant value for firms in doing this and that there is value to the community (which should also be of value to firms). For firms, the value lies in associate development, building relationships and teams across practice groups, and providing a rewarding experience for associates. Most transactional pro bono work is for 501©(3) organizations, but Candace would like to see more work for lifestyle / low-income businesses. Candace has actually worked to create a referral system with the Chamber of Commerce, the SBDC, the ELC, Rocky Mtn Microfinance, and Mi Casa. She has also developed some intake criteria based on income and legal issues. She thinks that intake and screening is critical, and that the ELC can provide value in that area. She also thinks that getting the client to the intake and screening (pre-intake) is challenging. Again, working with business support organizations may be fruitful. Candace's concerns included taking paying clients away from small practitioners, the time commitment for law firms, and getting intake and screening right. She also suggested that the Denver Bar Association could be the best home for an intermediary. ** Additional contacts: she suggested contacting Eileen Blume (sp?), President of the Denver Bar Assn and Theresa Locke, the pro bono coordinator at Holland and Hart. Also - Diane VanVoorhees, Executive Director of Metro Volunteer Lawyers. Candace said that there really aren't other full-time pro bono coordinators at other Denver law firms - she is the exception. In most cases, it is a partner or other staff member who has responsibility. * Mark Kurtenbach (Hogan Lovells Associate) ** Mark believes that there is a need for working with lifestyle / low-income businesses. However, he thinks that the ELC should take this on. He does not think that there is value for large firms in having corporate associates do work with small businesses because associates already do a lot of drafting. He does think that there is a value to associates but that associates are already overworked and may not engage without firm support. He also thinks that there is a conflict. For example, at Hogan, the only pro bono work that corporate associates do is for 501©(3) organizations that are pre-approved by the firm (usually established non-profit organizations). He thinks that law firms will be unwilling to take on the liability of private businesses as pro bono clients. Mark also thinks that firms sometimes approach this pro bono work from a business development standpoint, which is not the best way to think about it. He thinks that a clearinghouse-type intermediary would look like client development, and it would be hard to separate legitimate pro bono work from potential paying clients. ** Additional contacts: Marta Uka; the Colorado Committee of Lawyers * Tracy Grey (Holland and Hart) ** Tracy currently does pro bono work, and would be willing to do additional pro bono work. However, she is not interested in doing additional work to help facilitate the network. That said she might be willing to participate as an attorney our list, but was unclear about the amount of time or level of commitment she would be willing to devote. * Ben Oelsner (KKO) ** Ben has done pro bono work in the past but not as much recently. He says this is in large part because there are not a lot of pro bono opportunities for transactional attorneys, and trying to do pro bono work for “for profit” businesses has not worked well in the past. Ben is keen on the idea of a pro bono network, especially as a way to identify people who actually need transactional assistance. Ben said he was not sure how much time he would be willing to commit, but liked the idea. * Chris Humber (GC at Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.) ** Chris has mostly done pro bono work for charitable organizations (501©(3) applications and their general corporate matters), as well as supervising for the ELC. He says that many transactional attorneys have pro bono requirements within their firms, but there weren't many transactional-oriented opportunities. He also suggested CoLA as a resource. A director of CoLA does initial screenings, and an e-mail would be sent out every few weeks with new opportunities. One problem he foresees is getting things approved by pro bono committees: "Those committees want to be able to tout their programs as helping people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get legal advice. Two guys who dropped out of college to start an internet business are less sympathetic than the landlord tenant dispute where a single mom is about to be kicked out of her apartment for being a day late on rent." However, he does think that firms will support this initiative because it will get junior attorneys training without costing clients. * Paul Schoning (HRO) ** Paul has done the majority of his pro bono work through the ELC, but he believes that lots of Denver transactional attorneys have a difficult time finding transactional work that counts towards their pro bono committment. His major concern was the screening process for potential clients. He says almost all start-up companies do not have any funds to begin with. He would like us to be wary of poaching work from solo practitioners and smaller firms who typically charge lower fees for entity formation and other similar legal work. * Rob Keating ** Rob believes that there is a definite need for a transactional pro-bono network. He has completed some pro-bono work in the past, but has not done very much over the past year. This is largely due to a lack of time. As for the intermediary's duties, Rob said " Certainly understanding why someone needs free legal services would be a great start. All small businesses are pressed for cash, so the question is why local attorneys would devote time to a client on a pro bono basis, when almost all clients consider legal fees to be a considerable, burdensome expense. This would probably include information about the specific transaction, the business or company the work would be performed for, why this entity or individual is worthy or eligible for free services, etc." ** Additional contacts: Jon Sargent – Frascona Joiner; David Brantz – Kotkke and Brantz. * Mike Repucci (Johnson & Repucci) ** Mike agrees that there is an unmet need for transactional pro-bono attorneys. As for the his personal pro-bono efforts, he is largely limited by the amount of time it takes away from other clients and his family. The intermediary would be helpful if it could identify potential pro-bono clients and summarize their needs. ** Future - Mike is on the executive council of the CBA Real Estate section and would be willing to bring this up at a future meeting once this project is better defined. * Trish Rogers (Moye White) ** Trish was not interested in using an intermediary to connect her with pro-bono clients. Instead, she usually seeks out non-profits that she has a personal interest in and provides legal help to those organizations. She suggested we look at Metro Volunteers as an example of how to set up and structure the intermediary. As for other contacts, she thought associates at the big firms would be a great place to start, especially if they have annual pro-bono requirements. * Chris Toll (Otten Johnson) ** Chris does not currently do any pro-bono work, largely because he has difficulty finding pro-bono clients in his area of expertise (real estate) and does not have time to train in other areas where he could find pro-bono clients. He would be interetsed in an intermediary, but thought the key to its success is ensuring attorneys in the area know about it. To address this issue, he suggested that we advertise in the CBA monthly newsletter. He thought the intermediary would be useful if it could identify potential pro-bono clients that aren't simply trying to avoid paying legal fees. As for the future, he said that he would bring this up at a future firm-wide meeting. * Legal Services for Entrepreneurs in San Francisco ** I talked to the law student volunteer at Legal Services for Entrepreneurs and got some additional information on how they run their service. There are five people currently working at LSE, including one attorney, 2 fellows, and 2 law student volunteers. After an initial application that screens businesses that clearly do not qualify, one of the LSE volunteers conducts an intake interview. The main criteria for acceptance are income level and impact on the community. If the community impact is large enough LSE will consider taking on the client even if they exceed the maximum income level. After the interview the volunteer writes a profile of the clients business and legal needs. A panel of 8 attorneys from participating firms then reviews the potential client. These attorneys receive pro bono credit for their time on the review panel. ** If the panel approves the client, the profile prepared earlier is sent out to the email list of participating firms and any lawyer from a participating firm can then take on the client. LSE takes no responsibility for the client from this point on. The attorneys are not required to report back to LSE, but the attorneys and clients often do. ** Currently, only law firms participate in the program. This is because LSE requires the firm’s malpractice insurance to cover the client and is no longer involved once an attorney-client relationship is formed. In-house attorneys can participate in the program through an “office hours” program where the attorney is available to answer basic questions but explicitly does not form a lasting client relationship. ** They have received very good feedback from the participating firms, and almost all firms in the bay area participate. The most common comment they receive is that the pre screening process saves the attorneys lots of time and ensures that the clients are suitable for pro bono work. The volunteer also suggested that much of their success in finding clients has come from partnerships with organizations that help with business planning and micro finance for low income clients. The ELC’s current relationships with these types of organizations will be helpful on this point. * Mike Drapkin (Holland & Hart, IP/Patent Attorney, Partner) - he will send specific Q's to H&H's pro bono coordinator if we have them ** He currently does do pro bono work - mostly with There With Care (http://www.therewithcare.org/), which goes into homes with parents who are terminally ill and supports the entire family; Mesa is a great example of who nees help and many firms would be interested in helping Mi Casa-like clients; start-ups are in less dire need of help because they can get help with VC funding, the ELC, and firms can take equity in the start-ups in hopes that a few make it big; Mike also mentioned the PTO pro bono project ** The biggest unmet need to IP attorneys is finding clients that need help because many IP clients have money to spend on attorneys. Therefore, an entity that serves as a vetting function would be really helpful. The entity would best serve the community by helping to match attorneys and clients. However, the entity would need to have a well defined criteria of needs for the client to qualify for help - can't let in start-ups that have money but want to spend their money elsewhere. This will be the biggest challenge for the entity: defining eligable clients and to get enough clients for firms to be able to do the work. * Danny Sherwinter (Marsh Fischmann & Breyfogle, patent prosecution attorney) ** He currently does do pro bono work with PIIPA (Public Interest Intellectual Property Advisors - www.piipa.org) and IIPI (International Intellectual Property Institute - iipi.org). The PTO (Patent & Trademark Office) pro bono project has launched in Minneapolis and is about to launch in Denver. Ben Fernandez at Faegre is the person heading the Denver branch. We should contact him regarding mal practice insurance and other practical issues that could stand in the way for our pro bono entity. Mi Casa is the PTO pro bono project Denver branch's organization, which means that only people at Mi Casa will be helped by this project. Social entrepreneurs is a growing area of non-profits and could be an area where the transactional pro bono entity can help. ** Potential issues for the intermediary entity are: conflicts with paying clients, mal practice suits, and attorneys' time. Additionally, pairing with Silicon Flatirons would not be good for IP attorneys because Brad Feld and Jason Mendelson appear to be "anti-IP". Joining with the BIC may be a good idea. * Start-Up Colorado (Dave Mangum & Caroline De'Anor) ** Part of Start-Up Colorado will include legal services for the start-ups. 3-4 law firms have offered to participate: Baker Hostetler, Sheridan Ross, Dorsey & Whitney, and maybe Faegre Baker Daniels. The idea is to have a small round table each quarter at a different participating law firm. There will be a 1-1.5 hour presentation, then 0.5-1 hour Q&A session. Each round table will have a topic (incorporation, taxes as an LLC, IP, etc.). There is currently a one-pager circulating with details. Once it is finalized, we can get a copy. Start-Up Colorado may partner with Founder Institute in Denver (less intense version of Tech Stars). The idea is to get entrepreneurers from the ELC, each firm suggests a few clients, the Start-Up Colorado Board recommendations, Founder's Institute. Target clients include high-growth, scalable entrepreneurers - not non-profits or Mi Casa businesses. Getting ELC students involved has not yet been discussed (except between Kendria and Dave and Caroline). ** There is still a question of how to match entrepreneurers with attorneys and vice versa. Possibly a webpage with listings. * Anonymous Attorney (Sarah knows identity, attorney asked that her responses be kept anonymous). ** She currently does pro bono work but would like to leverage her particular skills more. Likes the idea of a pro bono network but has some concerns: "One concern is that the usual folks end up doing the work, see Boulder Bar as one example (I'm not a part of that group) or one firm uses it for their pro bono commitment and it eliminates collegiality and cooperation." ** Suggested the following resources: Check with Denver and Boulder bar associations for what works and what does not. Also, Silicon Valley. Who around the country is doing a good job,providing delivery in a new and accessible way (webinars?)? Also, you needto be mindful that if you do it for the traditional good ol boy startupnetwork, what are you doing to the young lawyers trying to build theirpractice? Tough question--what really constitutes pro bono? Is this going tobe run on the web freemium model to entice startups? Does this cause evenmore disintermediation for younger lawyers? Is Startup Colorado (America)providing some of this online? ** She also had the following comments: What about helping truly underserved populations, e.g. low income, minority,women, who live in inner city Denver or elsewqhere and are trying to startbusinesses on a quarterly basis? A survey is really what is needed here.Also, frank discussions or anonymous survey with younger lawyers trying to build their practices. * Eric Gunning ** Liked the idea of a probono network and was willing to contribute. Had concerns about the screening process and ensuring that folks that actually needed the help got it. Suggested looking into Colorado Lawyers for the Arts ("COLA"). Eric believed that COLA had a similar system set up where they send out a monthly newsletter of transactional (i.e. copyright, trademark etc.) pro bono opportunities to participating attorneys. * Dan Fredrickson ** Had major concerns about the ability for inhouse counsel to participate. Currently, inhouse counsel are not required to carry legal malpractice insurance, and he wouldn't want to do anything to jeopardize his company. Also, Dan had concerns about the screening process and the steps that would be taken to ensure that folks that actually needed help were getting it. * Carrie Schiff ** Thought there would be more incentive to participate if there were opportunities to mentor students invovled. For her, the benefit was not so much pro bono work, but rather teaching/helping out students. * Todd Criger ** Thought having to take a proactive first step to match up with pro bono opportunities would be problematic. He would be much more likely to take on a project if it were to come across his desk (as opposed to logging on to a database and picking something out). Expressed concern that any time he does pro bono it is time taken away from his family, so ensuring a path of least resistance is very important. * Brian Meegan ** Believed that there was both a supply and demand for a project like this. Suggested reaching out to Cornell University School of Law. Brian believed that Cornell has a similar program in place that has been successful. * Kent Lund (ELC Alum and attorney for small securities broker/dealer) ** Thinks its a great idea to consider creating a Pro Bono Lawyers Network in the Denver area to help startup companies. Consider as part of this analysis, enlisting CU law school Entrepreneurial Law Clinic alumni in the area. Consider speaking to Mike Platt. Mike may have some ideas on how to make the network happen, and there may already be some efforts on which this effort could be piggybacked.In terms of ideas about possible mechanics, Colorado and Denver Bar associations have some ongoing pro bono projects. In addition, for example, the CBA has a Business Law Section with a M & A subcommittee. Those groups regularly have meetings and events covering lots of topics such as VC, M & A, securities, business law developments, entity formation, etc. Those groups would be a good source for potential pro bono attorneys to help startups. Many practicing business lawyers are willing to help for altruistic reasons -- and also with hopes that their help will generate paying business down the line. *David Cheung (Securities Attorney) **Yes, does pro bono work but would like more free time to perform more pro bono work. Difficult when not working for a law firm that encourages/requires it. Thinks pro bono network is a good idea. Not aware of a network as formalized as the one we are proposing. Regarding a time commitment, start-up work is tough. Attorneys will need to devote at least 5-10 hours per week to be effective. David’s schedule fluctuates so can’t say how much time he would be able to devote. Most firms he has worked with have some pro bono requirement for their attorneys. Many of the pro bono hours are set up by the firm. We might want to see if a firm would make the Network eligible for pro bono credit. The Network will need a full-time lead to coordinate schedules, market the program, find attorneys to provide time etc. Should also have an agreement with the attorney whereby the attorney commits to follow certain rules, pledges a certain amount of time etc. *Matt Stamski **Thinks it is a great idea. Faegre is in a great position to join because already has a pro bono coordinator (see summary of Candace Whitaker). Faegre attorneys try to focus on low income clients for pro bono and work with the CU clinic counts towards community service work. Always looking for transactional pro bono work, especially for junior associates. Recommends looking at the group Colorado Lawyer's for the Arts. One issue that comes up is with conflicts. *Shawn Stigler **Likes the idea even though he and his firm already do pro bono work and have not had difficulty finding pro bono clients through referrals. Would want to know clients background and needs to ensure that it was a good fit. Suggested that one way to encourage participation would be to highlight the work done by firms through the network. This way it could be a promotional tool for firms/individuals that really put in a lot of effort. *Nathan Seiler **My conversation about the pro bono project was a little different than I was expecting. The attorney that I spoke to was a little hesitant about the idea. He raised some questions about where you draw the line of those that get free legal services and those that are required to pay for those services. He does work for a smaller firm so they deal with smaller clients anyways so I can see why he would have an issue with this distinction. He did say that he saw a good avenue to create non-profits and help them with their legal work. *Ben Fernandez - Faegre partner starting ProBoPat (pro bono project associated with US PTO and connected with Mi Casa) **See notes and flow chart in Dropbox for more details **Mal practice isurrance: issue of coverage for in-house attorneys and students; therefore, at first only allowing attorneys who can certify they are covered. ProBoPat thought about using "supervising attorneys," but there still was an issue of coverage because the supervisee must be employed by the supervisor or be an intern. There is also a privilege issue because if the supervisor is really the one "counseling" the client, then the communications between the supervisee are not privileged. They did legal research on this and did not come to a concrete solution so they are assuming this communication is not privileged. Students can get a special mal practice policy like clinical students - it is a legal aid mal practice plan. The Minnesota version of ProBoPat is affiliated with LegalCORPS and has a legal aid mal practice plan from NLADA. NLADA would not give ProBoPat a plan because ProBoPat is strictly a referral program - it was set up this way to isolate Mi Casa from liability **Process of attorneys being matched with clients - see flow chart in Dropbox folder **Funding: will have funding to pay for ***A part-time administrator's salary (20 hours/week; equal experience to a legal assistant); ***The administrator's costs (office supplies, building space even though sitting in Mi Casa, capital costs like travel and a computer, etc.); ***Promoting the program ***Possible events - meet & greet, updates on status, network, fly a USPTO commissioner out *Avi Loewenstein (Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck) **Former ELC alumni; was worried that discrete projects will overflow. BHFS already has pro bono work process / channel, but would be interested in hearing more about the project / potentially being presented to when the time comes and then bringing it forward to BHFS as channel for pro bono work. Would also potentially be interested in being involved in the TPBI advisory board, but thinks that it's important for such attorneys (who have limited time) to be higher level and have minimal commitment to such an advisory board. In general, worried that discrete projects for pro bono clients will end up being a full-out attorney-client relationship -- often has such problems with BHFS pro bono work where attorneys work on a project and then clients call up about other projects / questions, etc. Would want the project more completely outlined before being presented to. Liked the idea of the office hours and discrete projects (but would want the time limit of attorneys to be respected as well). *David Poticha (University of Colorado TTO) **Worked in-house immediately after CU Law; was worried about 1) inactive with the bar attorneys (some in-house attorneys have their companies pay for bar fees, but some don't and many go inactive), 2) malpractice insurance, 3) in-house attorneys potentially not having time / permission from employers to practice on pro bono work (was particularly worried about in-house attorneys having conflicts with potential pro bono clients -- though that was something he felt should be addressed by in-house attorneys themselves). For himself, he is inactive with the bar because he is not with the CU legal department (doesn't know if they have an arrangement whereby the University pays for their bar fees). He is not allowed to do pro bono legal work because he is inactive. For #3, most in-house attorneys don't have employers that require pro bono work (many law firms have a minimum requirement for pro bono, but for-profit companies not so much) and so that may be a challenge for discrete projects that require a lot of time. He said office hours might be something that work for in-house attorneys, though.